Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2004, Publication: 92nd ILC session (2004)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (Ratification: 1982)

A Government representative recalled that his Government had accepted from the beginning the direct contacts mission recommended by the Conference Committee in 2003 and had repeatedly contacted the Office to fix the date on which the mission would be carried out, so that it could take place before the June 2004 session of the Governing Body. This new mission should take place in a context of technical cooperation aimed at facilitating the implementation and promotion of the Convention, taking into account the situation in Venezuela with due objectivity, impartiality and transparency. With regard to the alleged acts of violence denounced by the CTV and FEDECAMARAS which referred to the creation of paramilitary groups and alleged death threats against the Executive Board of the CTV, he regretted the general character of such affirmations and recalled that every year the leaders who were supposedly threatened could freely attend national and international meetings, a fact which demonstrated that the allegations were unfounded. Moreover, these allegations were not brought before the competent state organs, which prevented any investigation on the matter. With regard to the paramilitary groups in particular, he declared that investigations had been conducted and had resulted in the detention of paramilitary or mercenary groups of foreign origin in the surrounding areas of Caracas. Such groups originated in the extreme right and were financed from abroad by a part of the opposition involved in the coup d'état of 2002. With regard to the assassination of a trade union member last year, he indicated that the responsible person had been rapidly detained and put on trial. The speaker also referred to the consultations with the main social partners and emphasized the success of the sectoral dialogue processes promoted by the Government since the coup d'état of 2002, with the participation of trade unions and employers' organizations in order to raise productivity, protect employment and create jobs. These dialogue processes were a key factor in the rapid economic recovery with the participation of the main social partners of the country. He underlined the importance in this respect of the agreement concluded between the Government and the political opposition, including the representatives of the CTV and FEDECAMARAS with the assistance of the Organization of American States (OAS), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Carter Center. The abovementioned industrial organizations had exercised their constitutional right to launch a referendum to revoke the President of the Republic, which would take place in the coming months and constituted a singular proof of the popular participation provided for in the Constitution of Venezuela of 1998. The reform of the Organic Labour Act was currently the subject of intensive consultations between the social partners.

With regard to certain legislative provisions which were contrary to the Convention, the speaker emphasized that all the observations made by the Committee of Experts had been incorporated in the Bill to amend the Organic Labour Act. The Government considered that the reforms would promote the organization of workers and employers and would enable workers to exercise voluntary collective bargaining. The reform was also in line with the proposal to strengthen the labour administration with regard to the protection of labour rights, inspection services and, in general, respect for the law. He expressed his surprise about the Committee of Experts' observation that "certain provisions (...) are in line with the comments made by the Committee" and requested the Committee of Experts to indicate which of its comments had not been taken into account by the proposed amendment. He also requested clarifications about the phrase "the serious nature of the problems which are still pending" since it was not clear to which problems the Committee referred. He regretted in this respect that the efforts made by the Government had not been appreciated since the observations of the Committee of Experts on the legislative provisions in question dated from 1991 and it was only the current Government which had initiated in 2002 the process to reform those provisions which were contrary to the Convention. As to the labour reform, the speaker stated that the Bill had been approved at a first discussion in June 2003 and that 18 meetings had taken place with the active participation of the social partners and advisers from CODESA, CGT, CUTV, CTV, UNT and FEDECAMARAS, as well as non-confederated organizations. The final discussion would take place in the second half of this year after ample consultations, in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. These consultations would be open to the civil society. The reform process would lead to a final position on other questions, such as the compensation regime for dismissal, incentives for joint management by workers, reduction of the working day and detailed regulation of mass redundancies, for which the technical assistance of the ILO had been formally requested.

With respect to article 95 of the Constitution, which referred to the alternation of trade union officers, the speaker stated that the Constitution neither established nor prohibited the re-election of union leaders, but that such a principle should be interpreted as a guarantee of human rights and freedom of association of the workers who joined unions, especially with regard to the right to elect representatives freely. According to the speaker, this principle implied only and exclusively the obligation for unions to hold elections periodically in conformity with their statutes. This did not imply that there was an obstacle to the re-election of union representatives to hold the same post that they occupied before or another union office. This position was explained on the web site of the Ministry of Labour and it was also well known that the Organic Labour Law required the holding of union elections every two or three years, in conformity with the statutes of the organizations. It could therefore be seen that the amendment took into account the comments of the Committee of Experts on this point. With regard to article 293 of the Constitution, which established the competence of the National Electoral Council to organize elections, he pointed out that information had already been provided in 2003 that the regulation of these issues was moving forward and was also foreseen in the Bill to amend the Organic Labour Act, which provided that the participation of the National Electoral Council in internal electoral processes would depend on the will of the trade unions themselves, always in accordance with the provisions of their statutes. Consequently, the elections held without the participation of the National Electoral Council in conformity with the statutes would produce full judicial effects and belong to the exclusive competence of the union electoral bodies. The Constitution expressly referred to the legislation and the latter subordinated any participation of the National Electoral Council to the respect of international labour Conventions. Hence, interference in internal union matters would be impossible. He noted the continuation in any case of the electoral processes initiated in 2001, which had been regulated by a special electoral statute that expired in November 2002. The Government's position on this matter had also been indicated on the Ministry of Labour web site since May 2003.

The speaker stated that, just as the Committee of Experts had taken note of the entry into force of a new resolution of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Republic on the sworn statement of assets of the union leaders, if they wished to do so freely and voluntarily, it should also have taken note of the entry into force of the Organic Act on the Electoral Authority, which provided that the organization of trade union elections by the National Electoral Council could only take place if such organizations freely and willingly so requested in conformity with their statutes. With regard to the withdrawal of the Bill on the protection of trade union guarantees and of the draft Bill on the democratic rights of workers and their trade unions, federations and confederations, he announced that these Bills had been removed from the legislative agenda some years ago. He also referred to the refusal of the authorities to recognize the Executive Committee of the CTV and declared that this Executive Committee had always been recognized. After the elections of October 2001, this recognition had been acknowledged by accrediting the representatives of this Confederation to the different international conferences. The CTV also participated in the negotiating process and the agreement concluded under the auspices of the OAS, UNDP and the Carter Center. However, the Government could not interfere in an internal union's issue as three of the 16 union movements had contested the elections held in the CTV in 2001. The Government was responsible for maintaining a public registry of trade unions and there was no entry of the October 2001 election in this registry, which implied that the elections had not been officially notified to the Ministry of Labour by the CTV. The speaker declared that there was no obstacle to the official recognition of the Executive Committee of the CTV when the necessary information was sent by the competent organ of the trade union organization and the composition of the Executive Committee was indicated. He concluded by noting that the only proceedings which remained pending were those before the Electoral Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Justice and shared in this respect the point of view of the Committee on Freedom of Association that this issue depended exclusively upon the will of the CTV, since the Government could not intervene in trade union matters nor violate the internal legal order. He recalled the importance of the technical cooperation provided by the Office and expressed his thanks for recent missions undertaken by the ILO Regional Office in Lima in order to provide technical assistance to strengthen the labour administration.

The Employer members noted that this was a long-standing case and that in 2000, 2001 and 2003 the Conference Committee had placed its conclusions in a special paragraph noting continuous failure by the Government to respect freedom of association. They further recalled that the Government's position with regard to the acceptance of a direct contacts mission remained unclear. They stated that the situation of freedom of association in the country was not satisfactory. There were increasing violations against representatives of the social partners, and the Government denied all allegations made by the Committee of Experts, including the existence of paramilitary groups such as the círculos bolivarianos, which the Government claimed were simply welfare organizations. The Government maintained that workers' and employers' organizations had participated in the conspiracy that led to the coup in 2002. It appeared to the Employer members that the Government's strategy consisted simply of denials and attacks. Referring to the agreement concluded in May 2003 between the Government and political and social groups supporting it, they noted that the Government had practically concluded an agreement with itself, proving that there was no genuine attempt to engage in dialogue with the Government's opponents.

The Employer members also stated that legislation in force continued to violate fundamental principles of freedom of association. They noted that the Government representative had indicated that a bill to reform the Organic Labour Act would address points raised by the Committee of Experts, including the excessively high number of members required to establish an employers' or workers' organization, and the excessively long residency requirement for foreign workers before they could become members of the executive bodies of trade unions. They recalled, however, that these changes had been planned for years. Even if this bill was enacted, provisions in the Constitution would have to be amended in order to restrict the powers of the National Electoral Council which was responsible for organizing elections in trade unions. They noted that the Government always made promises and announcements for legislative changes, but nothing ever happened. Turning to the recent acceptance by the Government of a direct contacts mission, the Employer members requested the Government representative to indicate whether the Government had agreed to receive this mission under the usual conditions governing direct contacts missions, in particular with regard to the length of time and extent of such a mission. Noting the Government representative's mention of a technical cooperation mission, the Employer members wondered whether the Government had intentionally mixed up these terms to further hinder progress.

The Worker members noted that the Committee of Experts in its report of the preceding year had referred to the conclusions on Venezuela and it was hoped that the Government would respect the commitments it had then promised to undertake. The Government had shown its willingness to accept a direct contacts mission and it was of extreme importance that the said mission took place before the next meeting of the Committee of Experts. It was regrettable that the Government did not provide information on the investigation relating to allegations made by the CTV and FEDECAMARAS concerning acts of violence and anti-union activities. The workers' and employers' unions could not exercise their rights except under conditions of non-violence and threats. Moreover, it was hoped that the agreement signed on 28 May 2003 would encourage a constructive dialogue between the social partners as a whole. The Worker members noted the Government's adoption of a legislative reform project which addressed several issues previously raised by the Committee of Experts regarding the restrictions imposed on the training and functioning of workers' and employers' organizations. Regarding the constitutional provisions which had implications on the application of the Convention, the Government should remove, as it had been requested by the Committee of Experts, the powers accorded to the National Electoral Council which allowed it to interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions, and should allow the free organization of elections within the framework of the unions themselves. It was also noted that the Government had repealed the resolution which required the trade union leaders to produce official statements of their assets and withdraw the draft law on freedom of association which was criticized. They requested the Government to find an adequate solution to effectively recognize and acknowledge the Executive Committee of the CTV. To conclude, noting that the Government had made the effort to respond to the Committee of Experts' observations, the Worker members wished that, in its next report, the Government would give an account on the effective implementation of the announced measures and the results of the direct contacts mission. The objective of the direct contacts mission would be to observe to what extent the draft laws were adopted and to allow the workers' and employers' organizations to freely express their views on their relations with the Government.

The Government member of Cuba referred to the measures that the Committee of Experts had highlighted, including the Bill to reform the Organic Labour Act which reflected the observations formulated by this Committee and the results of the direct contacts mission in 2002, and which incorporated measures for the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and other labour rights. The drafting of this Bill had involved many consultations with the social partners as had been indicated to the Committee of Experts in 2002. Other measures which stood out were the new Organic Act on the Electoral Authority which conditioned the participation of the National Electoral Council in trade union elections on a voluntary request by trade union members, if their rules so permitted. She had noted cases in which various trade union leaders had been re-elected by their constituents in elections in which the National Electoral Council had not participated. Referring to the climate of violence which was being propagated by certain extreme right-wing groups in the country and which was contrary to the will of the Government, she underlined the intransigence and the exclusion which were found within workers' and employers' organizations and which were indicative of complicity with this violent climate. This climate of violence, for instance the failed coup of 2002 and more recently the introduction of paramilitary groups financed from foreign centres, aimed at creating violent situations in order to discredit the participative democratic reform process which was undertaken in the name of the long-excluded people and its aspirations. What was therefore needed in this case was to proceed with the direct contacts mission accepted by the Government, with a view to encouraging the adoption of the new Organic Labour Act. The Committee of Experts should take note of the changes proposed in this Act which precisely corresponded to the comments it had made.

The Worker member of Venezuela stressed that it was important for the Government of Venezuela to recognize the rights of the CTV trade union. This was an important step in the path towards the peace and conciliation process. It was hoped that such measures would be put into practice. It was equally important that the direct contacts mission took place to evaluate the situation on the ground, in consultation with all social partners, with a view to ensuring the full application of the Convention. The Venezuelan trade unions asked that this mission imply all sectors. The speaker rejected all attempts to violate freedom of association, either on the part of the Government or on the part of employers, because hindering free exercise of trade union rights closed the path to the social development of peace and violated standards enshrined in labour law and in the Constitution. An autonomous trade union organization was the guardian of this inalienable right. There could be no social justice without freedom of association. He also referred to the high rate of unemployment in Venezuela as a result of dismissals in the public and private sectors, despite existing legislation on employment stability which had not prevented these dismissals. The collapse of the labour inspection was a result of these dismissals. Dismissed workers were forced to withdraw their social contributions and thus became part of the unstructured sector of the economy, that is to say, the informal economy. He concluded by asking the Government to indicate when the direct contacts mission would take place so as to facilitate its work.

The Worker member of the United States, noting recent developments in Venezuela, stated that the National Electoral Council had ruled that there were a sufficient number of valid signatures to support a revocation referendum, and that the President of Venezuela appeared to have accepted the Council's ruling. This decision also respected the terms of point 12 of the agreement signed in Caracas in May of last year between the Government and the Coordinadora Democrática. Both the Labour Minister and the CTV General-Secretary had negotiated and signed that document. He recalled that the AFL-CIO had condemned the coup of 2002 against the President of the Republic, and had commended the Venezuelan Government for its criticism regarding the failure to include labour and social rights provisions in trade agreements. His delegation's difference with the Government had to do with ongoing violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, including the December 2000 plebiscite allowing all voters, including employers and the military, to determine the future of trade union governance; the seizing of assets of the CTV Agricultural Workers Federation; the President's public statement of 1999 that he would "demolish the CTV"; the firing of hundreds of PDVSA employees who may or may not have participated in the company's shutdown in 2002; and the suspension of collective bargaining in the petroleum and other public sectors. He noted that the Committee of Experts had commented on the ongoing violations of the Convention, based on article 293 of the Constitution, and the fact that the Government refused recognition of the CTV's national leadership, despite the lack of any judicial decision declaring the Confederation's elections invalid. The Government argued that CTV leaders had participated in the coup of 2002 and in the sabotage of the petroleum industry, but no Venezuelan court had ever found any individual CTV leader guilty of such criminal acts. Noting the observation by the Committee of Experts that the Government failed to hold consultations with the main social partners, he recalled that in 2003 a member of the CTV executive had publicly urged the CTV and other labour organizations such as the UNT and CUTV, business organizations including FEDECAMARAS, and the Government to draw up a plan for national growth and development based on tax and fiscal incentives and employment policies. This indicated that the CTV was not out to sabotage the Venezuelan economy. He wondered why it was possible for the CTV General Secretary and the Labour Minister to sign an agreement on the constitutional and electoral process but not for the Government to invite the social partners to systematic, regular and authentic social dialogue. He asked the Committee to adopt the most effective and constructive conclusions as possible in this regard.

The Worker member of Brazil stated that Venezuela was a country which within a short period of time had achieved a significant improvement of the workers' living conditions. There had been a decrease in the unemployment rate, an improvement of the health services for the poor, oil production had attained more than 72 per cent of its previous capacity and the production costs had decreased by half, while currency control measures had made it possible to stop financial speculation. All these achievements became possible with the active and enthusiastic participation of workers and their unions. The speaker urged the ILO to show solidarity with Venezuela and to provide firm support to the socio-economic development of this country.

The Government member of Sweden spoke on behalf of the Governments of Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway. She welcomed the information that the Government had decided to accept a direct contacts mission, and expressed the hope that it would take place in the near future. She regretted that the Government had not ordered investigations into the reported acts of violence. She stressed that the rights of workers' and employers' organizations could only be exercised in a climate that was free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations. She urged the Government to take measures to ensure that this principle was respected. Last year the governments she represented had addressed the fact that the Government of Venezuela had not held adequate consultations with the social partners. This year, while taking note of the information that the Government had signed an agreement with some political and social elements, they hoped that the Government would immediately initiate social dialogue with all the social partners, without any exclusion whatsoever, with a view to finding solutions in the very near future to the serious problems relating to the application of the Convention.

The Worker member of Cuba stated that the climate of violence which existed in Venezuela had been instigated by the opposition, with the enormous support of the mass media, in order to overthrow the Government. In his opinion, no other government had shown more aspiration for the dialogue with the social partners or more respect for the rights of citizens laid down in the Constitution. The speaker expressed a deep conviction that the Government would endeavour to bring all its legislation into conformity with the Convention and to apply it in practice. He pointed out that the Government of Venezuela deserved the trust, respect and support of workers. The employers of this country who acted with honesty should support the current policy of the President of Venezuela.

The Worker member of India congratulated, on behalf of the Indian workers, the Government of Venezuela for having withstood the military coup of 2002 organized by high ranked military officers with direct support of mass media network owners. He noted that this was the first time Venezuelan workers were being represented at the Conference by all five trade union confederations. This reflected the principle that delegations should be representative. He also noted with satisfaction that the Government had accepted the direct contacts mission. The attitude of the Government should be recognized, especially in view of the fact that in other similar cases countries were less cooperative. He stated that while the amendment of the Constitution of a sovereign country was an internal matter, such an amendment should be considered if the Constitution contradicted legislation providing full freedom of association. The Indian workers supported the provision in the Venezuelan Constitution requiring a sworn statement of assets of trade union leaders at the beginning and end of their mandate. This was necessary to prevent corruption. He concluded by noting that the verification of membership of all trade union confederations could be undertaken by government machinery, with a view to giving the unions recognition on the basis of verified membership every four years, as was the practice in India.

The Worker member of France noted that the political climate described in the Committee of Experts' report had not improved neither with the coup that had taken place with the involvement of certain leaders of the CTV and FEDECAMARAS nor with the strikes of 2002-03 against the constitutional regime in the country. Freedom of association was recognized and interpreted broadly by the supervisory organs of the ILO. However, it was obvious that the political situation aimed at toppling the constitutional Government was outside the ambit of the Convention. The social situation was of concern, as 80 per cent of the population was poor and did not enjoy any of the benefits derived from the country's oil riches, while the minority which benefited from such oil income wanted to conserve their privileges through a failed coup. It was hoped that the referendum which was then taking place enabled changes in the overall climate. A legal reform process was under way. It was hoped that the new legislation would address the criticisms expressed in the Committee of Experts' reports over the last several years. Regarding certain constitutional provisions criticized by the Committee of Experts, it was obvious that these provisions were of an autocratic nature in relation to trade union elections and the right of unions to organize freely their activities and designate their leaders. In this regard, it was recalled that the judicial authority did not have the competence to regulate or organize the election of trade unionists. Trade union leaders were not to be required by law to make a declaration of their assets. It was for the workers to judge the actions of their elected leaders, and for the unions' statutes to regulate union affairs. The Government should also be requested to respond to all allegations of discrimination against union leaders. Moreover, the laws should ensure that all representative institutions were able to negotiate freely. The current situation was in a flux. In the event of uncertainty regarding the representative character of an organization which had signed a collective bargaining agreement, the workers concerned should be allowed to express their views. Objective criteria were called for at all levels of the enterprises to determine the necessary representativity of trade unions. In conclusion, the direct contacts mission, agreed to by the Government, should take place rapidly so as to enable the Committee of Experts to take account in their next report of observations emanating from this mission.

Another Worker member of Venezuela stated that the opposition forces, headed by the CTV and FEDECAMARAS, acted as generators of violence in Venezuela. During the past few years, numerous agricultural unions' leaders from the National Coordination Ezequiel Zamora and COFAGAN had been assassinated. This year, the construction trade union leaders had been assaulted and assassinated by the armed gangs of the CTV. The electricity sector was under co-management by the workers and the state, in order to prevent its privatization signed by the CTV in 1998. The speaker requested the Government to impose an obligation on FEDECAMARAS, in compliance with the law, to reinstate more than 250,000 of dismissed workers. Regarding the recognition of the CTV, the speaker stated that it was well known that this organization had lost its representativity, by having abandoned the workers' interests, over the past five years, for the sake of exclusively political activities aiming at overthrowing the Government. The CTV opposed the decrees concerning employment security, supported by other trade union confederations, because it wished, as well as FEDECAMARAS, to use dismissals as a weapon in the internal conflict. As regards freedom of association, the speaker considered that there had never been more such freedom as in this period of time, which had been recently proved in the collective labour conflict in the iron and steel industry enterprise SIDOR, which had lasted 23 days and in which the right to strike was fully respected. There was also an unprecedented freedom for collective bargaining, for example, the conclusion of important collective agreements in the public sector, like recently for the judges, which involved significant achievements for workers through the participation of all trade union organizations of the CTV and UNT, including in the private sector. This was also the case in the construction sector, as well as in the multinational enterprises.

An observer representing the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) stated that the Government of Venezuela, in breach of the ILO Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Conference, had designated an illegal and illegitimate delegation which had prevented the main organization of the country, the CTV, from being represented. He recalled that, in 2001, the direct contacts mission had concluded that "in Venezuela, the necessary conditions for the full exercise of trade union rights did not exist". Three years later, this situation had worsened, resulting in violations, especially of this Convention. Moreover, the CTV had not been recognized, workers were discriminated against and persecuted for pursuing trade union activities, trade union leaders were harassed, and the Ministry of Labour illegally used its power to hinder the recognition of workers' organizations. There had also been repeated violations of Convention No. 98, including the exclusion of main trade unions from their right to contest and negotiate collective agreements. The speaker recalled that tripartism, which was the foundation of the ILO, had been stigmatized and violated by the authorities. Moreover, in the last three months, more than 32,000 workers in the public sector had been dismissed. All this demonstrated that the intention of the Government was not to accept the recommendations of the ILO. In view of all these violations and repeated lies, he asked the Committee to urge the Government to comply with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in the case of Venezuela.

The Government representative said that the open spirit of the Venezuelan Government was proven by the fact that the spokesperson of the ICFTU, who had taken the floor and who had spoken about his country, belonged to the CTV and to the Workers' delegation of Venezuela and it was in that capacity that he had travelled to the Conference. There could be no doubt of the readiness of the Government to receive a direct contacts mission, and moreover meetings had been held on an ongoing basis since last November, until the Government's request was formalized in April 2004. This direct contacts mission should be well-balanced and should take all the social partners into account. Therefore, despite the misunderstanding of the Employer members, the Government had not confused the direct contacts mission with any technical cooperation mission. The Government was perfectly aware of what was being referred to and knew what the mission's mandate was, particularly as regards respect for the plurality of social partners, in order to have a balanced view of the situation in the country. The previous year's discussions referred to a direct contacts mission that would provide broad technical support to promote a needed legislative reform. He reiterated that his Government did not encourage or promote violence and, even less, the setting up of paramilitary groups outside the law. But he did regret that unfounded complaints had been made, which were part of an irresponsible political strategy lacking true commitment to democracy. Last year his Government observed with repugnance the murder of a person during a trade union demonstration, a reproachable yet not politically motivated act. The individual responsible for that reprehensible murder was soon arrested and the judicial decision ordering his imprisonment was recently pronounced. Likewise, he elaborated on the existence of paramilitary groups, made up of foreign mercenaries and financed by sectors from the extreme right, which had been destabilizing democracy since 2002 and which had direct and immediate links with that year's coup.

He recalled that the members of the Government of Venezuela in many cases came from the human rights movement, and that they did not support situations of human rights violations nor did they endorse impunity. He confirmed the wish of the Government of Venezuela to carry out a reform of the Organic Labour Act. Since the advent of the human rights movement, and for a number of years, his Government had been adhering to the suggestions of the Committee of Experts to make it easier for workers to organize and to ensure that there was no economic sector where they were not able to organize. His Government advocated labour legislation that protected workers and ensured respect for human rights. Today there were sanctions that, far from criticizing and discouraging failure to comply with legislation, encouraged and protected certain employers who failed in their social responsibilities. The new law should provide the Ministry of Labour with tools to ensure that standards were respected by all the social partners. He trusted that the direct contacts mission would provide an opportunity and a suitable occasion to evaluate the ways of bringing the Constitution of the Republic into line with the Convention, including issues relating to articles 95 and 293 of the Constitution. With regard to social dialogue, it should reach all the social partners, all the workers' and employers' organizations, and all the various bodies. Democracy in Venezuela was widespread and participative, inclusive and not exclusive. The social partners, who had been relegated and excluded for decades, now played a fundamental role in the building of a new country and a new society.

In Venezuela there was room for such monopolies, democracies in the hands of a few that kept the vast majority out of the decision-making process; that was a thing of the past - participative democracy was now in place. Neither could there be a return to practices such as those used in the past by FEDECAMARAS that led to private foreign debt being settled as part of public foreign debt. For that reason there was no problem in recognizing the capacity or the representatives of a trade union confederation, such as CTV. However, nobody, including the CTV, could pretend not to respect the law and comply with legal obligations, however simple these might be. He stated that, in that framework of a plurality of social partners, agreements were not signed solely and exclusively between friends, or between those attached to the Government, as the Employer Vice-Chairperson wrongly claimed when he referred to the instrument of 29 May 2003 signed by the Government and the political opposition (including the CTV and FEDECAMARAS). That agreement was signed following the involvement of the OAS, the UNDP and the Carter Center. Based on this important agreement, the opposition groups that previously supported the coup, economic sabotage and political destabilization, learnt that they had to move within the constitutional framework that those majorities had established. Lastly, he invited the social partners to collaborate in a climate of mutual respect, democratic coexistence and participation because all were called on to contribute to the building of a new country and a new society, while counting on the technical assistance and cooperation of the ILO.

In reply to a request by the Employer members, a representative of the secretariat confirmed that the Government had addressed a letter to the Director-General of the Organization, dated 27 April 2004, in which it stated that it accepted a direct contacts mission and suggested that the said mission visited Venezuela from 10 to 14 May 2004.

The Employer members, after having taken note of the Office's response, noted that the dates proposed by the Government had already passed, and that the direct contacts mission had not taken place. Therefore, new negotiations were required with regard to a mission at another time. They stressed that a direct contacts mission had to be carried out before the next session of the Committee of Experts in order to enable the latter to consider the results. Turning to the final statements of the Government representative, the Employer members observed that most of the declarations were a sort of election campaign with regard to the probably forthcoming referendum in the country. Beyond these political declarations, the Government representative had not provided any new information related to the facts examined by this Committee. This was particularly deplorable, since the majority of speakers had confirmed the serious violations of freedom of association in the country, and one Worker member had indicated murders of trade union leaders. Nevertheless, the Government merely made promises for the future and referred to bills which were not laws in force. In conclusion, they said that the Committee's conclusions should reflect in an appropriate manner the ongoing serious violations of freedom of association. The Government should be urged to proceed with legislative changes, and accept a direct contacts mission in the near future under the usual conditions set forth by the ILO for such missions. They finally considered it justified to present the conclusions in a special paragraph.

The Worker members stated that the Government undertook certain commitments and should be invited to provide concrete information on those commitments. The Government confirmed that it had accepted a direct contacts mission and indicated that it would take the necessary measures for the recognition of the Executive Committee of the CTV, in law and in practice. It was requested that the direct contacts mission take place before the next meeting of the Committee of Experts to enable it to evaluate the situation. It was hoped that the direct contacts mission would confirm that the draft laws announced were effectively adopted and that the workers' and employers' organizations were duly recognized in law and in practice and that there was no hindrance to the free organization of the employers and workers and no government interference in this regard. Concrete improvements were expected to materialize the following year. It was for this reason, that the Worker members did not consider this session to be the opportune moment to devote a special paragraph in the Committee's report to the conclusions relating to Venezuela.

The Government representative reiterated, in relation to the conclusions, that his Government wished to clarify that, since November 2003, meetings had been held in good faith with ILO officials, both in Caracas and in Geneva, concerning possible dates and the conducting of the new direct contacts mission. Similarly, it followed from the conclusions that there was an evident point of order related to the existence of the allegedly urgent and serious cases before the Committee on Freedom of Association, which were not discussed and could not be a subject of discussion in this Committee, which was exclusively based on the Experts' comments. This point of order was even more evident with regard to cases which were still under examination, when the Government had not yet provided full information and when fundamental decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice were under preparation. For these reasons, a reference to these cases should be deleted from the text, since it was not relevant to the discussion and did not correspond to the Committee's mandate. Lastly, as regards the recognition of the Executive Committee of the CTV, the Government was not against it. As soon as the CTV members complied with the provisions of the law, like members of other organizations, the labour administration officials would immediately recognize their representatives. In the speaker's opinion, the above points affected the balance of the conclusions.

The Committee noted the oral information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee noted with concern that the problems raised by the Committee of Experts referred to questions relating to the right of workers and employers to form organizations of their own choosing, the right of these organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom, to draw up their rules without interference by the authorities, and to organize their activities. The Committee noted that, according to the declaration of the Government representative, the Bill to reform the Organic Labour Act covered questions raised by the Committee of Experts and would be the subject of a final discussion in the National Assembly in the second semester of 2004. The Committee also noted that the Government's position on the requirement of alternation in trade union elections was that this did not prohibit the re-election of trade union leaders, and that the Organic Act on the Electoral Authority provided that the participation of the National Election Council in trade union elections was voluntary. Finally, the Government had indicated that the Bills on the protection of trade union guarantees and freedoms and the democratic rights of workers and their trade unions had been withdrawn from the legislative agenda of the National Assembly.

The Committee noted with concern that a number of urgent and serious cases against the Government of Venezuela had been submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee underlined that the draft law submitted to the National Assembly to which the Government had referred last year had not been approved. The Committee expressed the hope that this law would be approved before the end of the year and that it would be fully compliant with the Convention. The Committee noted that the Government had accepted a direct contacts mission but regretted that this decision had been delayed until after the meeting of the Committee of Experts and announced just before the Conference. The Committee expressed its great concern at the growing number of acts of violence against the social partners and once again brought to the attention of the Government that respect for civil liberties was essential to the exercise of trade union rights, and it urged the Government to take the necessary measures without further delay so that workers' and employers' organizations could fully exercise the rights recognized by the Convention in a climate of complete security. In view of the fact that the problems raised by the Committee of Experts constituted serious violations of freedom of association, the Committee urged the Government to renew dialogue with the social partners.

Therefore, the Committee urged the Government immediately to take the necessary legal and practical measures, in consultation with the most representative workers' and employers' organizations, to guarantee the full application of the Convention in a process in which due notice was taken of the main views of these organizations. The Committee requested the Government to recognize the Executive Committee of the CTV so that a real social dialogue could develop in the country. Moreover, the Committee expressed its firm hope that the direct contacts mission would examine all outstanding questions and would enjoy full freedom to interview all social actors, that this mission would be undertaken in a manner allowing the Committee of Experts to examine the report of the mission at its next session, and that the Government would send a detailed report on the particular outstanding problems before the Committee of Experts.

The Government representative reiterated, in relation to the conclusions, that his Government wished to clarify that, since November 2003, meetings had been held in good faith with ILO officials, both in Caracas and in Geneva, concerning possible dates and the conducting of the new direct contacts mission. Similarly, it followed from the conclusions that there was an evident point of order related to the existence of the allegedly urgent and serious cases before the Committee on Freedom of Association, which were not discussed and could not be a subject of discussion in this Committee, which was exclusively based on the Experts' comments. This point of order was even more evident with regard to cases which were still under examination, when the Government had not yet provided full information and when fundamental decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice were under preparation. For these reasons, a reference to these cases should be deleted from the text, since it was not relevant to the discussion and did not correspond to the Committee's mandate. Lastly, as regards the recognition of the Executive Committee of the CTV, the Government was not against it. As soon as the CTV members complied with the provisions of the law, like members of other organizations, the labour administration officials would immediately recognize their representatives. In the speaker's opinion, the above points affected the balance of the conclusions.